Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 21STCV02350 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV02350, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV02350 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s unopposed demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Meet and Confer

The demurrer is accompanied by the declaration of Jaime Hernández which satisfies the meet and confer requirements. (Code Civ. Proc. § 430.41.)

Legal Standard

A demurrer for sufficiency tests whether the complaint states a cause of action. (Hahn v. Mirda (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 740, 747.) When considering demurrers, courts read the allegations liberally and in context. (Taylor v. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 1216, 1228.) The court “treat[s] the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law ….” (Berkley v. Dowds (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 518, 525).) In a demurrer proceeding, the defects must be apparent on the face of the pleading or via proper judicial notice. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994).) A demurrer tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters; therefore, it lies only where the defects appear on the face of the pleading or are judicially noticed. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 430.30, 430.70.) The only issue involved in a demurrer hearing is whether the complaint, as it stands, unconnected with extraneous matters, states a cause of action. (Hahn, supra, 147 Cal.App.4th at 747.)

Discussion

Defendant LAUSD demurs, arguing that the complaint fails to state sufficient facts to constitute causes of action due to Plaintiffs failure to cite applicable statutory authority and a basic modicum of facts in support of all causes of action against a public entity.

Government Code § 815 provides, in pertinent part, that, except as otherwise provided by statute, a “public entity is not liable for an injury, whether such injury arises out of an act or omission of the public entity or a public employee or any other person.” (Government Code § 815(a).) (See Nasrawi v. Buck Consultants LLC (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 328, 341 (“A public entity…is subject to direct liability only as provided by statute or required by the state or federal Constitution. [Citations]”).) (See also San Mateo Union High School Dist. v. County of San Mateo (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 418, 427-428.) In order to properly assert a claim in tort against a California governmental entity, a plaintiff must demonstrate that a statute provides a basis for liability. (Williams v. Horvath (1976) 16 Cal.3d 834, 832-838 [“Government Code section 815 restores sovereign immunity in California except as provided in the Tort Claims Act or other statute. Thus the intent of the [A]ct is not to expand the rights of plaintiffs in suits against governmental entities, but to confine potential governmental liability rigidly delineated circumstances: immunity is waived only if the various requirements of the [A]ct are satisfied”].)

The Court agrees with Defendant. Plaintiffs fail to identify a statute which provides a basis for liability for their first cause of action for negligence and the second cause of action for premises liability. As noted above, in order to assert a claim in tort against a public entity, such as Defendant, Plaintiffs must allege a statutory basis for liability. (Williams, supra, 16 Cal.3d at p. 832-838.)

Second, the form complaint only alleges that on October 31, 2019, plaintiff was injured on the following premises in the following fashion: “Please see ATTACHMENT 10A TO COMPLAINT.” It also alleges that Defendant LAUSD owned the property on which a dangerous condition existed. However, there is no attachment to the complaint. As such, the complaint also fails to state sufficient facts to constitute causes of action. “The limited and statutory nature of governmental liability mandates that claims against public entities be specifically pleaded. [Citation] Accordingly, a claim alleging a dangerous condition may not rely on generalized allegations [Citation] but must specify in what manner the condition constituted a dangerous condition. [Citation] Although it is the general rule that it is a factual question whether a given set of facts and circumstances creates a dangerous condition, the issue may be resolved as a question of law if reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion. [Citations] Accordingly, if the facts pleaded by the plaintiff as a matter of law cannot support the finding of the existence of a dangerous condition within the meaning of the statutory scheme, a court may properly sustain a demurrer to the complaint.” (Brenner v. City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 439–440.)

As Plaintiffs have failed to identify any statutory basis for liability, and failed to allege sufficient facts, Defendant’s demurrer is sustained with 30 days leave to amend.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Defendant Los Angeles Unified School District’s demurrer to the complaint is SUSTAINED with 30 days leave to amend.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.